Shortie's Ex wrote:Byron White and Anthony "Swing Vote" Kennedy are smiling too. This has been masterfully played by the Democratic leadership. There is a little bit of Souter in this guy.

I disagree. "Chuckie" Schumer should have kept his powder dry for the next appointment by Trump, which could possibly come when Ol' Ruthie finally slips on those banana peels she's standing on. A filibuster then would have made more sense and even productive. Now it's only a simple majority.

We need at least 2 more young constitutionalists on the court. When the concept of a "living" document was first bandied about I thought it might be a better way to go. When I saw the manifestation of the concept I retorted "Hell No!!!!!". Another lesson in "Be careful what you wish for".

Dr. Evil wrote:First I'd like to remind all the Bernie or bust people out there, not that anybody reads this, that elections have consequences.

Second, I'm curious to see if Kennedy gives Trump and his party the dignity of another SCOTUS pick in stepping down himself.

Third, this is where we'd be if the Constitution weren't a living document:

Fourth, honestly, the thought of having had three liberal justices placed back to back didn't really appeal to me either.

How many times do I have to explain the 2nd amendment...you're an idiot.Read slow...The government does not and can not grant "rights". Only God and "natural law" can bestow rights to humans. Rights are not granted nor can they be taken away by a government (except in the liberal's utopia). The 2nd amendment does NOT grant people the right to bear arms...that is from God. What the 2nd amendment does is tell they government they may not infringe upon that "right". Is any of this sinking in dumb azz?

Fourth, honestly, the thought of having had three liberal justices placed back to back didn't really appeal to me either.

The thought of placing liberal or conservative justices on the court doesn't appeal to me either. As near as I can tell the court has been a football ever since FDR tried to fire the justices and when that didn't work increase the size of the panel so he could pack the court with justices amenable to his liberal agenda. Remember when litmus test was a nasty concept? I do, I also have seen it spun to a normal and acceptable process today.

Fourth, honestly, the thought of having had three liberal justices placed back to back didn't really appeal to me either.

The thought of placing liberal or conservative justices on the court doesn't appeal to me either. As near as I can tell the court has been a football ever since FDR tried to fire the justices and when that didn't work increase the size of the panel so he could pack the court with justices amenable to his liberal agenda. Remember when litmus test was a nasty concept? I do, I also have seen it spun to a normal and acceptable process today.

I assume then that you disagree then with the GOP's disgraceful actions towards modetate Merrick Garland?

Dr. Evil wrote:First I'd like to remind all the Bernie or bust people out there, not that anybody reads this, that elections have consequences.

Second, I'm curious to see if Kennedy gives Trump and his party the dignity of another SCOTUS pick in stepping down himself.

Third, this is where we'd be if the Constitution weren't a living document:

Fourth, honestly, the thought of having had three liberal justices placed back to back didn't really appeal to me either.

How many times do I have to explain the 2nd amendment...you're an idiot.Read slow...The government does not and can not grant "rights". Only God and "natural law" can bestow rights to humans. Rights are not granted nor can they be taken away by a government (except in the liberal's utopia). The 2nd amendment does NOT grant people the right to bear arms...that is from God. What the 2nd amendment does is tell they government they may not infringe upon that "right". Is any of this sinking in dumb azz?

If you have the natural right to kill someone at your own digression, wouldn't you have the natural right to marry whomever you want?

Dr. Evil wrote:First I'd like to remind all the Bernie or bust people out there, not that anybody reads this, that elections have consequences.

Second, I'm curious to see if Kennedy gives Trump and his party the dignity of another SCOTUS pick in stepping down himself.

Third, this is where we'd be if the Constitution weren't a living document:

Fourth, honestly, the thought of having had three liberal justices placed back to back didn't really appeal to me either.

How many times do I have to explain the 2nd amendment...you're an idiot.Read slow...The government does not and can not grant "rights". Only God and "natural law" can bestow rights to humans. Rights are not granted nor can they be taken away by a government (except in the liberal's utopia). The 2nd amendment does NOT grant people the right to bear arms...that is from God. What the 2nd amendment does is tell they government they may not infringe upon that "right". Is any of this sinking in dumb azz?

If you have the natural right to kill someone at your own digression, wouldn't you have the natural right to marry whomever you want?

Your perverted fantasies are just that...perverted and an abomination of God's laws. Sorry, you lose now and throughout eternity.

Fourth, honestly, the thought of having had three liberal justices placed back to back didn't really appeal to me either.

The thought of placing liberal or conservative justices on the court doesn't appeal to me either. As near as I can tell the court has been a football ever since FDR tried to fire the justices and when that didn't work increase the size of the panel so he could pack the court with justices amenable to his liberal agenda. Remember when litmus test was a nasty concept? I do, I also have seen it spun to a normal and acceptable process today.

I assume then that you disagree then with the GOP's disgraceful actions towards moderate Merrick Garland?

Thanks for confirming that Dickhead Garland was NOT QUALIFIED to sit on the Supreme Court. By YOUR use of the terminology MODERATE, you have confirmed that he is a man governed by the RULE OF POLITICS and not the RULE OF LAW.

I assume then that you disagree then with the GOP's disgraceful actions towards modetate Merrick Garland?

No I do not. Those days seem gone forever due to the intractable nature of both parties at present. In my view the Dems started the process back when Borks treatment at the hands of Dems coined a new term "Borking" and made it worse with the despicable treatment of Clarence Thomas. The congressional Dems have become so accustomed to bullying the Reps into getting their way for so long it is now been taken by them as a "right". Gotta draw the line somewhere, might as well be here before any more damage is done.